Tales from the patriarchy

Spandrell

The way of properly learning a language is to do what languages are made for: use it. Ideally, live your usual life, do whatever it is you like doing, and just try to find a way to insert that language you're learning into your daily routine. So if, say, you like movies, and you're learning Persian, well, stop watching Hollywood crap and go pick up some Persian movies.

I get asked about books on Chinese history, and I tend not to know what to say. I haven't read a lot of Chinese history books in English. Certainly not any general ones. I read China in World History by Adshead after Steve Sailer recommended it. It's a fascinating book, not very accurate, but a fun read for beginners, so I do recommend it too. Generally speaking most English books on China are pretty bad, and badly written. With the exception of Frederick Wakeman's, which are awesome.

What I often do to read up on Chinese history is watch a historical TV show, then stop anytime something bugs me and go check out the primary sources out there in Wikisource. If the thing is interesting I check out 知乎, China's much improved version of Quora, where they have detailed explanations and book recommendations. If the topic is interesting enough I get the (Chinese-language) book.

There's a recent TV show in China about 司馬懿 Sima Yi, one of the most important leaders of the Three Kingdoms period. The whole period, which lasted about 100 years, 180 to 280 AD, is the most written about in the history of China, mostly because of the sheer force of personality of the men of the time. Dozens upon dozens of great warriors and statesmen. Sima Yi wasn't the most colorful of them, but arguably he was the guy who won the game. He was a quiet minister of the northern kingdom, Cao Wei, where he served and outlived three emperors. The guy was so good at anything he did, so influential that part of the imperial family decided to get rid of him, lest he took power for himself and made a puppet of the imperial court. He let the court take away all his power for 10 years. Then out of the blue he run a coup d'etat, where... he took power for himself and made a puppet of the imperial court. At 72 year old he executed thousands upon thousands of imperial kinsmen. Then he died. His soon took over, then died. Then his grandson decided to do away with the charade and took the throne for himself. He then started the 晉 Jin Dynasty.

map_of_three_kingdoms

So anyway, the show is pretty good. But it's of course adapted to modern sensitivities. But not so much, I was very surprised to see a scene where he kills the whole family of his main rival in the coup, 曹爽 Cao Shuang. The usual penalty for treason in China was 夷三族, "leveling of the three families". There are conflicting records on which three families this referred to, but basically it meant killing the whole extended family, clients included. So all wives, brothers, children, parents, uncles and aunts. All beheaded, if possible together. The scene in the series shows Cao Shuang's 3 year old son, tied up in white clothes, in front of the beheading platform. They don't show his head being cut off, of course, but the mere sight of a 3 year old boy in front of a beheading platform would get most housewives in the West calling for their smelling salts and yelling at social media.

Anyway, kudos for China for their accuracy in that front. Shame on China for their lack of accuracy in what remains, in my view, the still biggest and most encroached area of progressive influence in modern China. Women. I write a lot about how Islam is a better deal for Men than Western culture, which is why Muslim immigrants refuse to integrate, and in fact radicalize further in their faith after moving to the West. But if Islam is a good deal, old Chinese culture was the freaking lottery. Polygamy among the gentry in China was not only legal: it was expected. And there was no limit to the number of wives you could acquire. Girls were sold as property at 13-15 years old, and no self-respecting men would not get a new wife every 5-10 years if he could afford to.

Of course having too many wives was frowned upon. It was a sign of lack of seriousness. Women are something men like, but men should like other things more, manly things. Warfare and government. Reading and the arts. Women were entertainment, who also happened to produce children, which are always nice to have, as they make heirs, and daughters which you can give to you friends' sons.

It is unconceivable that a man of the stature of Sima Yi would not have a handful of wives. And indeed he had, four of them in total. His first wife, Lady 張 Zhang, is said to have had a temper. That means that... she had a temper. In the TV show though, tailored to modern sensitivities, for commercial reasons if only, as most TV show viewers are women, Lady Zhang is a kung-fu master who accompanies her mild-mannered husband at war, does ninja work to help him in his conspiracies, and basically runs the household with an iron clit. Amazingly (progress!) the show has Sima Yi welcome a second wife. The show makes it look like the emperor forces upon him a second wife, Lady 柏 Bai to spy on him, and that makes his first wife, Lady Zhang, to flare up in outraged fury. How dare you get a second wife! A good 5 episodes are dedicated to this story. But she eventually accepts the fact and they get along together, the second wife being super smart or something.

Which I guess it's great fun for modern housewives, who like soap operas of women fighting for status. But as a historical show, the whole premise is ridiculous in the extreme. First of all, Lady Bai was his fourth wife. That's 4 women. Second, Lady Zhang was just some boring housewife with a temper, no super ninja. Third, while Chinese wives were indeed never happy about their husbands getting another wife, there was nothing they could do about it. Ancient China didn't recognize divorce, but wives nagging about concubines was one of the few cases where it was granted. Lady Zhang, first wife, may indeed have given shit to Sima Yi about it, but only so much of it, and the idea that Sima Yi would be apologetic about it, that he would feel sorry about getting a younger and hotter wife, is just preposterous.

Don't take my word about it though, the official history of the Jin Dynasty says it for me. The historian in charge was funny enough to add this piece of domestic life of Sima Yi.

其後柏夫人有寵,后罕得進見。帝嘗臥疾,后往省病。帝曰:「老物可憎,何煩出也!」后慚恚不食,將自殺,諸子亦不食。帝驚而致謝,后乃止。帝退而謂人曰:「老物不足惜,慮困我好兒耳!」

Sima Yi spent more time with Lady Bai; Lady Zhang hardly ever saw him anymore. One day, Sima Yi was sick, lying in bad, and Lady Zhang went to see him. Sima Yi saw her and said: "You annoying old thing, why did you bother coming out?". Lady Zhang was so angry and embarrassed that she stopped eating, and was going to kill herself. All her children [note: the elder, most legitimate heirs of him] stopped eating too. Sima Yi was startled and went to apologize, so she stopped (started to eat again). Sima Yi then left and told his men: "the old thing doesn't deserve pity, what bothered me was my poor good boys!".

00e93901213fb80e8ccc28323dd12f2eb9389432

This anecdote is not only funny today; it was funny even then, as it takes 3 lines of the 8 total lines that Lady Zhang, posthumous empress, got in the official history. I love how he called her, 老物, "old thing". Plenty to comment here: wives being annoying in any time and any social stratum, wives using their children as weapons in order to get what they want. Human nature.

Sima Yi was a huge prick, unlike the mild gentle man he is in this TV show. In previous renditions he's written more accurately. But hey, he founded a dynasty, he was the towering general and statesman of the most tumultuous and interesting era in 5000 years of China. Of course he was a prick.

Tales from the patriarchy | @the_arv

[] Tales from the patriarchy []

Jim-Bob

Can you forsee a time when Chinese leadership begins dressing in those ancient Chinese cultural outfits again, or at least modern versions of them? It strikes me as odd that a country as insular and proud as China would have leaders that all wear Western business suits. It seems to me that as they gain international power and prestige there may come a time when they no longer want to dress like Westerners and may even look back at this period when they did with some embarrassment.

Spandrell
Replying to:
Jim-Bob

I've thought that for quite some time. I find Arab garb quite ugly but I respect them wearing it. In Japan is common for women to wear traditional clothing while men wear suits. In China less so, them having broken their tradition once after 1644, but there are increasing numbers of traditional clothing clubs who do outdoors activities to gather attention. As of now, if Chinese politicians ever start dressing differently, they'll adopt Mao-Sun Yatsen style dress, which is close-ish to Qing dynasty dress, and rather more comfortable.

Duke of Qin

The Confucian killjoys frowned upon concubinage. Getting a younger concubine was the equivalent of a wealthy 50 year old doctor divorcing his 50 year old wife to marry a 20 year old woman. Legal but still declasse. Quora used to be better. Indians killed it. The Wests' (sans the British Raj) experience with Indians has been mediated through their Anglophone 0.1%. The "democratizing" power of the internet have brought their remaining 1-9% English semi-literate population into the wider world and their lumpen intellectual habits with them. Thankfully the remaining top quartile of Indians who have regular internet access communicate primarily in their native languages, keeping their sub buzzfeed levels of garbage and weird porn interests to themselves. I disagree with you regarding the nature of Chinese polygamous relationships. I don't think they were an beneficial at all, but rather a weakness. I think the Supreme invention of Western society wasn't the corporation or it's social political organization, but the Christian family. The Catholic Church's insistence on monogamous marriage and subsequent break down of extended clan patronage networks was what made everything else possible. Then again, a few hundred years from now empirical evidence may show otherwise, but for the time being it has been successful.

Spandrell
Replying to:
Duke of Qin

After Zhu Xi yes, the 理学 neoconfucian killjoys did frown upon concubinage, but not very strongly. Even Zeng Guofan had a concubine. Europe was monogamous before the Catholic Church. Not even Greeks had concubines. So those are different issues. At any rate from the Catholic Church destruction of Germanic kindreds, until Europe became superior to China there's 1200 years of time. You're telling me China sucked on the meantime? Come on. Let China be China and Europe be Europe.

Candide III
Replying to:
Spandrell

Greeks had concubines. Demosthenes said in 4th century BC, "We have hetaerae for pleasure, pallakae [concubines] to care for our daily body’s needs and gynaekes [wives] to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households." Monogamy was about wives. Note that pallakae weren't common prostitutes, those were a separate class called pornai.

Spandrell
Replying to:
Candide III

Yeah, true, female slaves. Those were a thing in Rome too. Not quite the same as a 妾 but ok. When did that stop being a thing?

Tales from the patriarchy | Reaction Times

[] Source: Bloody Shovel []

Candide III
Replying to:
Spandrell

I don't know, but somehow doubt that these customs went away in the Hellenistic period. If anything, Alexander's empire introduced more "Eastern" customs. Ptolemies were of Greek/Macedonian origin and yet look at their family tree. My guess is that slave-concubines stopped being a thing in Greece when Christianity became powerful - III c. AD perhaps? Rome was peculiar for having several different marriage systems running in parallel, at least legally - marriage cum manu by confarreatio, originally used by patricians (but later also by plebeians), marriage cum manu by coemptio, originally used by plebeians, marriage cum manu by usus, used by lower classes, then forms of marriage sine manu which came to replace stricter forms by late Republican period, and concubinage proper. However these were all mutually exclusive: a Roman could not legally have a wife and a concubine, and both in Rome and in Greece only the children begotten upon the legal wife were legitimate - a big difference from China, where as I understand multiple wives' issue had equal legal status. To what extent were female slaves in Rome equivalent to Greek pallakae, again I don't know, but apparently Romans didn't think much of men who satisfied their desires with their slaves (Horace, Satires I.2).

Spandrell
Replying to:
Candide III

There was a difference between children by the primary wife (嫡子) and the others (庶子), but the law in China got flexible over time. In theory they couldn't inherit, but they often did, and politically of course they did inherit titles if there were no legitimate sons.

Random

How is a polygynous society good for Men? It's good for the few that get in power, but so is every other society. For every man that gets a second wife, another man loses his chance of any wife. In fact, this is probably a big reason why the Muslim world is so dysfunctional. Although, for conquering your neighbors, this is not a bad idea - arrange for a huge underclass of desperate young men, forcing them to invade other lands for any chance at reproduction.

Spandrell
Replying to:
Random

Oh, here comes a democrat. Polygamy is expensive. Very much so. The fraction of the population who could afford multiple wives was tiny, almost insignificant. Say, 5%. Do you think 100% of men marry? Do they today? What's wrong with the bottom 5% of men not reproducing? Polygamy in Muslim societies is also a very rare thing, which is hardly to blame for anything. China wasn't dysfunctional, it was the foremost civilization for centuries. Muslim countries are dysfunctional because they are dumb.

daniel
Replying to:
Spandrell

Only the bottom 5% in a society with official polygamy? And merely not reproducing, rather than not having sex at all? Sounds pretty good for that democracy guy.

Candide III
Replying to:
Spandrell

So the system was similar at first, but as you say got flexible over time in a different direction from Greece and Rome, where instead of Chinese de-facto polygyny the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children remained but divorce and remarriage assumed modern frequency and normalcy.

Fasting Showman

Any particular works by Wakeman you'd care to recommend?

Spandrell
Replying to:
daniel

Plenty of hookers for that.

Spandrell
Replying to:
Fasting Showman

The great enterprise is awesome.

ivvenalis
Replying to:
Spandrell

The question isn't how many men are engaged in polygamy (always a tiny number) but how many women. That being said, if polygamy causes dysfunction it's definitely not because it prevents a relatively small number of men who were losers anyway from getting married.

Jim-Bob
Replying to:
Spandrell

I guess the Chinese leader is already adopting the Mao-Sun Yatsen style dress. Here he is at a state dinner with Obama wearing it.

Spandrell
Replying to:
Jim-Bob

Yes. It's like a republicanized, simpler version of the magua, the Manchu jacket. I got one which I wear in spring and it's pretty nice. Certainly more comfortable than old kimono-style stuff.